It is challenging to select ground motion models (GMMs) for seismic hazard assessments for a region with sparse recorded data. In this study, data on the 2020 Mw5 Moc-Chau earthquake and its aftershocks were used to select an appropriate GMM for northern Vietnam (NVN). The 204 strong motion records were collected from 32 seismic stations and then used to compare eleven non-Vietnamese and two simplified Vietnamese local GMMs to assess their model prediction efficiencies. Among all the candidates, the global NGA-West2 GMMs performed the best fit with the data. Our analyses revealed the possibility of damage resulting from shaking in the Hanoi metropolitan area caused by recognized earthquake sources in NVN. In our examination of total residuals of differences between the GMM predictions and observed data, the average standard deviation from ASK14 was slightly higher than the limit accepted for modern seismic hazard assessments. ASK14 was further adjusted by the spatially varying coefficients that were derived from observations ground motion of this event. The adjusted ASK14 was used to evaluate seismic risk scenarios of large earthquakes in NVN and compared with the structures’ design spectra of the Hanoi area. To increase the prediction efficiency, additional local data are required to develop a region-specific GMM for NVN. We suggest that GMM be developed in the near future by regionalizing the ASK14 GMM according to additional local data further collected from existing broadband seismic observations and new accumulating continuous recording data from Vietnam’s broadband seismic networks.
AbrahamsonN ASilvaWJKamaiR (2014) Summary of the ASK14 ground motion relation for active crustal regions. Earthquake Spectra30(3): 1025–1055. https://doi.org/10.1193/070913EQS198M.
2.
AkkarSSandıkkayaMABommerJJ (2014) Empirical ground-motion models for point- and extended-source crustal earthquake scenarios in Europe and the Middle East. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering12(1): 359–387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-013-9461-4.
3.
AtkinsonGMBooreDM (2006) Earthquake ground-motion prediction equations for eastern North America. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America96(6): Article 6.
4.
BommerJJ (2012) Challenges of building logic trees for probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. Earthquake Spectra28(4): 1723–1735. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.4000079.
5.
BommerJJDouglasJScherbaumFCottonFBungumHFähD (2010) On the selection of ground-motion prediction equations for seismic hazard analysis. Seismological Research Letters81(5): Article 5. https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.81.5.783.
6.
BommerJJScherbaumFBungumHCottonFSabettaFAbrahamsonNA (2005) On the use of logic trees for ground-motion prediction equations in seismic-hazard analysis. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America95(2): 377–389.
7.
BooreDMStewartJPSeyhanEAtkinsonGM (2014) NGA-West2 equations for predicting PGA, PGV, and 5% damped PSA for shallow crustal earthquakes. Earthquake Spectra30(3): 1057–1085. https://doi.org/10.1193/070113EQS184M.
8.
BozorgniaYAbrahamsonNAAtikLAAnchetaTDAtkinsonGMBakerJWBaltayABooreDMCampbellKWChiouBS-JDarraghRDaySDonahueJGravesRWGregorNHanksTIdrissIMKamaiRKishidaT… YoungsR (2014) NGA-West2 research project. Earthquake Spectra30(3): 973–987. https://doi.org/10.1193/072113EQS209M.
9.
BozorgniaYCampbellKW (2016) Ground motion model for the vertical-to-horizontal (v/h) ratios of PGA, PGV, and response spectra. Earthquake Spectra32(2): 951–978. https://doi.org/10.1193/100614EQS151M.
10.
CampbellKWBozorgniaY (2008) NGA ground motion model for the geometric mean horizontal component of PGA, PGV, PGD and 5% damped linear elastic response spectra for periods ranging from 0.01 to 10 s. Earthquake Spectra24(1): 139–171. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2857546.
11.
CampbellKWBozorgniaY (2014) NGA-West2 ground motion model for the average horizontal components of PGA, PGV, and 5% damped linear acceleration response spectra. Earthquake Spectra30(3): 1087–1115. https://doi.org/10.1193/062913EQS175M.
12.
ChaoSHChiouBS-JHsuCCLinPS (2019) A horizontal ground-motion model for crustal and subduction earthquakes in Taiwan. Earthquake Spectra36(2): 463–506. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755293019891711.
13.
ChiouBS-JYoungsRR (2014) Update of the Chiou and Youngs NGA model for the average horizontal component of peak ground motion and response spectra. Earthquake Spectra30(3): 1117–1153. https://doi.org/10.1193/072813EQS219M.
14.
DasS (2015) Supershear earthquake ruptures–theory, methods, laboratory experiments and fault superhighways: an update. In: Perspectives on European Earthquake Engineering and Seismology. Springer, Cham: 1–20.
15.
DawoodHMRodriguez-MarekA (2013) A method for including path effects in ground-motion prediction equations: an example using the Mw 9.0 Tohoku earthquake aftershocks. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America103(2B): 1360–1372. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120120125.
16.
Di AlessandroCBonillaLFBooreDMRovelliAScottiO (2012) Predominant-period site classification for response spectra prediction equations in Italy. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America102(2): 680–695. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120110084.
17.
DuanBVThangNCVuongNVNguyenPD (2013) The magnitude of the largest possible earthquake in the Muong La-Bac Yen fault zone. Vietnam Journal of Earth Sciences35(1): Article 1.
18.
DuongNASagiyaTKimataFToTDHaiVQCongDCBinhNXXuyenND (2013) Contemporary horizontal crustal movement estimation for northwestern Vietnam inferred from repeated GPS measurements. Earth Planets and Space65(12): Article 12. https://doi.org/10.5047/eps.2013.09.010.
19.
EdwardsBCrowleyHPinhoRBommerJJ (2021) Seismic hazard and risk due to induced earthquakes at a shale gas site. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America111 (2): 875–897. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120200234.
20.
EmoloASharmaNFestaGZolloAConvertitoVParkJChiHLimI (2015) Ground-motion prediction equations for South Korea Peninsula. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America105(5): 2625–2640. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120140296.
21.
GeoPentech (2015) Southwestern United States Ground Motion Characterization SSHAC Level 3 – Technical Report Rev.2.
22.
HassaniBAtkinsonGM (2016a) Site-effects model for Central and Eastern North America Based on peak frequency. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America106(5): 2197–2213. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120160049.
23.
HassaniBAtkinsonGM (2016b). Applicability of the site fundamental frequency as a VS 30 proxy for central and eastern North America. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 106(2): 653–664
24.
HuangBSLeTSLiuCCToanDVHuangWGWuYMChenYGChangWY (2009) Portable broadband seismic network in Vietnam for investigating tectonic deformation, the Earth’s interior, and early-warning systems for earthquakes and tsunamis. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences36(1): Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jseaes.2009.02.012.
25.
KuehnNMAbrahamsonNAWallingMA (2019) Incorporating nonergodic path effects into the NGA-West2 ground-motion prediction equations. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America109(2): 575–585. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120180260.
26.
LapNK (1991) The seismotectonics of the Indochina peninsula. Journal of Southeast Asian Earth Sciences6(2): Article 2.
27.
LavrentiadisGAbrahamsonNAKuehnNM (2023) A non-ergodic effective amplitude ground-motion model for California. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering21(11): 5233–5264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01206-w.
28.
LavrentiadisGAbrahamsonNANicolasKMBozorgniaYGouletCABabičAMacedoJDolšekMGregorNKottkeARLacourMLiuCMengXPhungV-BSungC-HWallingM (2023) Overview and introduction to development of non-ergodic earthquake ground-motion models. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering21(11):5121–5150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-022-01485-x.
29.
LuNTBurminVYHangPTTHoanVTGiangHT (2018) Estimation of errors in determination of main parameters of earthquake hypocenter, recorded by the national seismic network of Vietnam. Vietnam Journal of Earth Sciences40(1): Article 1. https://doi.org/10.15625/0866-7187/40/1/10875.
30.
LuNTRodkinMVPhuongTVHangPTTQuangNHoanVT (2016) Algorithm and program for earthquake prediction based on the geological, geophysical, geomorphological and seismic data. Vietnam Journal of Earth Sciences38(3): Article 3.
31.
MedvedevSVSponheuerW (1969) Scale of seismic intensity. In Proc. IV World Conference of the Earthquake Engineering, Santiago, Chile. A-2: 143–153.
32.
MercadoVPajaroCAArtetaCADíazFJMontejoJArcilaMAbrahamsonNA (2023) Semiempirical model for the estimation of site amplification in Northern South America. Earthquake Spectra39(2): 1109–1139. https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930231153190.
33.
NakamuraY (1989) A Method for Dynamic Characteristics Estimation of Subsurface Using Microtremor on the Ground Surface. Railway Technical Research Institute, Quarterly Reports, 30(1). https://trid.trb.org/View/294184.
34.
NCREE (2015) Reevaluation of probabilistic seismic hazard of nuclear facilities in Taiwan using SSHAC level 3 methodology project. Available at: Http://sshac.ncree.org.tw (accessed 31 December 2019). National Center for Research on Earthquake Engineering (NCREE).
35.
NguyenCNNguyenVDHaTGDinhQVNguyenLMHuangBSPhamTTNguyenHTLeQKNguyenHH (2022) Automatic earthquake detection and phase picking in Muong Te, Lai Chau region: An application of machine learning in observational seismology in Vietnam. Vietnam Journal of Earth Sciences: 430–446. https://doi.org/10.15625/2615-9783/17253.
36.
NguyenCNNguyenVDNguyenLMPhungVBHuangB-SNguyenADLeQKGiangHTDinhQVHaVLChenPF (2022a) Characteristics of earthquake source and ground motions in Northern Vietnam investigated through the 2020 Moc Chau M5.0 earthquake sequence. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences229: 105–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jseaes.2022.105144.
37.
NguyenDX (2005) Research and Forecasting Earthquakes and Ground Movements in Vietnam. Hanoi, Vietnam: Vietnam Institute of Geophysics (in Vietnamese).
38.
NguyenDXLeTS (2005) Seismic hazard assessment for Vietnam Territory. In: Proceedings of the 4th Conference of Vietnamese Association of Geophysics Hanoi, Vietnam Publishing House of Science and Technology, pp. 281–304.
39.
NguyenHPPhamTTNguyenTN (2019) Investigation of long-term and short-term seismicity in Vietnam. Journal of Seismology23(5): Article 5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-019-09846-x.
40.
NguyenLMLinTLWuYMHuangBSChangCHHuangWGLeTSNguyenQCDinhVT (2012) The first peak ground motion attenuation relationships for North of Vietnam. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 241–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jseaes.2011.09.012.
41.
NguyenVQAaqibMNguyenDDLuatNVParkD (2020) A site-specific response analysis: A case study in Hanoi, Vietnam. Applied Sciences10(11): Article 11.
42.
NizamaniZAParkD (2021) Testing Ground-Motion Prediction Equations against Moderate Magnitude Earthquake Data Recorded in Korea. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America111(1): 321–338. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120200095.
43.
NovakovicMAtkinsonGMAssatouriansK (2018) Empirically calibrated ground-motion prediction equation for Oklahoma. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America108(5A): Article 5A.
44.
OrnthammarathTWarnitchaiPChanCHWangYShiXNguyenPHNguyenLMKosuwanSThantM (2020) Probabilistic seismic hazard assessments for Northern Southeast Asia (Indochina): Smooth seismicity approach. Earthquake Spectra36 (1_suppl), 69–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755293020942528.
45.
PailopleeSChoowongM (2014) Earthquake frequency-magnitude distribution and fractal dimension in mainland Southeast Asia. Earth Planets and Space66(1): Article 1. https://doi.org/Artn810.1186/1880-5981-66-8.
46.
PEER (2015) NGA-East: Median ground-motion models for the central and eastern North America region. PEER Report No. 2015/04. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California.
47.
PhamTTNguyenHP (2019) Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for Hanoi City. Vietnam Journal of Earth Sciences41(4): 321–338. https://doi.org/Doi:10.15625/0866-7187/41/4/14235.
48.
PhungVBAbrahamsonNA (2023) Conditional ground-motion model based on RVT spectral moments for converting Fourier amplitude spectra to response spectra. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering21(11): 5175–5207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-022-01559-w.
49.
PhungVBAbrahamsonNAHuangBSLohCH (2022) Vertical ground-motion prediction equation and the vertical-to-horizontal spectral ratio for crustal earthquakes in Taiwan. Earthquake Spectra38(2): 1189–1222. https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930211061168.
50.
PhungVBLohCHChaoSHAbrahamsonNA (2018) Analysis of epistemic uncertainty associated with GMPEs and their weight within the logic tree for PSHA: Application to Taiwan. Terr. Atmos. Ocean. Sci. 29: 611–633. https://doi.org/doi:10.3319/TAO.2018.08.13.01
51.
PhungVBLohCHChaoSHChiouBSJ (2020) Ground motion prediction equation for crustal earthquakes in Taiwan. Earthquake Spectra36(4): 2129–2164. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755293020919415.
52.
PhungVBNguyenC.NHaVL (2024) Program code and data for paper “Evaluation of Ground Motion Models for Northern Vietnam based on Ground Motion Records of the 2020 Moc-Chau Mw5.0 earthquake sequence.” Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10525914.
53.
PhuongNH (1991) Probabilistic assessment of earthquake hazard in Vietnam based on seismotectonic regionalization. Tectonophysics198(1): Article 1.
ScherbaumFDelavaudERiggelsenC (2009) Model selection in seismic hazard analysis: An information-theoretic perspective. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America99(6): 3234–3247.
56.
Stan Development Team (2018) CmdStan: The command-line interface to Stan, Version 2.18.0. Available at: http://mc-stan.org (last accessed December 2018).
57.
SungCHAbrahamsonNAKuehnNMTraversaPZentnerI (2023) A non-ergodic ground-motion model of Fourier amplitude spectra for France. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering21(11): 5293–5317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-022-01403-1.
58.
TapponnierPPeltzerGLedainAYArmijoRCobboldP (1982) Propagating extrusion tectonics in Asia—new insights from simple experiments with plasticine. Geology10(12): Article 12. https://doi.org/Doi10.1130/0091-7613(1982)10<611:Petian>2.0.Co;2.
59.
TranVHKiyomiyaO (2012) Ground motion attenuation relationship for shallow strike-slip earthquakes in Northern Vietnam Based on Strong motion records from Japan, Vietnam and adjacent regions. Journal of Japan Society of Civil Engineers, Ser. A1 (Structural Engineering & Earthquake Engineering (SE/EE))29: 23s–39s. https://doi.org/10.2208/jsceseee.29.23s.
60.
TranVHKiyomiyaO (2013) Source parameter estimation and stochastic ground motion simulation based on recorded accelerograms in Northwestern Vietnam. Journal of Earthquake Engineering17(3): Article 3. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2012.719484.
61.
TuyenNHLuNT (2012) Recognition of earthquake-prone nodes, a case study for North Vietnam (M⩾ 5.0). Geodesy and Geodynamics3(2): Article 2.
62.
WaldDJQuitorianoVWordenCBHopperMDeweyJW (2012) USGS “Did You Feel It?” internet-based macroseismic intensity maps. Annals of Geophysics54(6): Article 6.
63.
WenSYehYLTangCCPhongLHToanDVChangWYChenCH (2015) The tectonic structure of the Song Ma fault zone, Vietnam. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences107: 26–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jseaes.2015.03.046.
64.
WuWJWenSTangCCYehYLLaiHPDinhVQChenCH (2018) Seismogenic structures in the Ma River fault zone, Vietnam: Insights from focal mechanisms of microearthquakes and local stress states. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America108(6): Article 6. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120180096.
65.
ZhaoJXIrikuraKZhangJFukushimaYSomervillePGAsanoAOhnoYOouchiTTakahashiTOgawaH (2006) An empirical site-classification method for strong-motion stations in Japan using H/V response spectral ratio. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America96(3): 914–925. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120050124.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
